Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Besselaar, P. van den"
  1. Wen, B.; Horlings, E.; Zouwen, M. van der; Besselaar, P. van den: Mapping science through bibliometric triangulation : an experimental approach applied to water research (2017) 0.00
    0.0025370158 = product of:
      0.0050740317 = sum of:
        0.0050740317 = product of:
          0.010148063 = sum of:
            0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010148063 = score(doc=3437,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The idea of constructing science maps based on bibliographic data has intrigued researchers for decades, and various techniques have been developed to map the structure of research disciplines. Most science mapping studies use a single method. However, as research fields have various properties, a valid map of a field should actually be composed of a set of maps derived from a series of investigations using different methods. That leads to the question of what can be learned from a combination-triangulation-of these different science maps. In this paper we propose a method for triangulation, using the example of water science. We combine three different mapping approaches: journal-journal citation relations (JJCR), shared author keywords (SAK), and title word-cited reference co-occurrence (TWRC). Our results demonstrate that triangulation of JJCR, SAK, and TWRC produces a more comprehensive picture than each method applied individually. The outcomes from the three different approaches can be associated with each other and systematically interpreted to provide insights into the complex multidisciplinary structure of the field of water research.
    Type
    a
  2. Besselaar, P. van den: Empirical evidence of self-organization? (2003) 0.00
    0.002269176 = product of:
      0.004538352 = sum of:
        0.004538352 = product of:
          0.009076704 = sum of:
            0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009076704 = score(doc=1235,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In a recent paper in this journal, Loet Leydesdorff and Gaston Heimeriks (2001, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 1262-1294.) argue that biotechnology develops in a self-organizational mode, through interaction between the intellectual structure and the institutional network of the research field. This claim is empirically supported by a multivariate analysis of documents from core biotechnology journals. One unexpected finding in this paper is the relationship between the title words of documents and the region of their origin. This claim requires examination because, as will be shown, it seems to be an artifact of the method used. If this is so, it undermines the authors' theoretical claim that the production of knowledge is a self-organizing process.
    Type
    a
  3. Besselaar, P. van den; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Correct assumptions? (2016) 0.00
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = product of:
          0.008118451 = sum of:
            0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008118451 = score(doc=3020,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3020, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3020)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a